Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (LUCKNOW BENCH)
SANGEETA CHANDRA, AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, JJ.
Maiku and another - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 18 of 1992
Decided on : 10-04-2024
Criminal - IPC - Sections 302, 377, 201, 404 - The court discussed the evidentiary standards required for circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of circumstances that excludes any reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the recovery of a deceased body from a well, leading to the conviction of the appellants for murder and unnatural offenses based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimonies of key witnesses unreliable and concluded that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence linking the surviving appellant to the crime.
Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to convict the surviving appellant for the charges of murder and unnatural offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that excludes any reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.-This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 27.11.1991 passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 171 of 1990 arising out of Case Crime No. 151 of 1990, under Sections 377, 302, 201 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ''I.P.C.''), Police Station Safipur, District Unnao, whereby the appellants, Maiku and Manzoor alias Mansoor have been convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The appellant No. 1, Maiku has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 377 I.P.C. The appellant No. 2, Manzoor alias Mansoor has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo five years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 377 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The appellant No. 2, Manzoor alias Mansoor has also been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 403 I.P.C.
2. At the outset it is relevant to mention that this appeal was filed by the appellants, Maiku and Manzoor alias Mansoor. However, due to death of co-convict, Manzoor alias Mansoor, during pendency of this appeal, the appeal in respect of him has been abated vide order dated 20.1.2020 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, the present appeal survives with regard to accused/appellant, Maiku only.
3. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 15.3.1990 the first informant, Afsar Ali gave an oral information at Police Station Safipur that dead body of the deceased, Satya Narayan was spotted afloat in a well situated in the agricultural field of Mahadev Singh, which was noticed by the shepherds.
4. The inquest proceeding started on 15.3.1990 at 09:30 a.m. and got concluded on 15.3.1990 at 10:30 a.m. The inquest report has been duly proved by P.W.-7, Shiv Harsh Tiwari, Investigating Officer as Ext. Ka.6.
5. On the basis of an oral information given by the first informant, Afsar Ali, the First Information Report, Ext. Ka-18 came to be lodged against the appellants on 16.3.1990 under Sections 377, 302, 201 and 404 I.P.C.
6. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He visited the place of occurrence and prepared site plans thereof Ext. Ka-11 to 14.
7. Upon conclusion of investigation, a charge-sheet, Ext. Ka-15 came to be submitted in the Court concerned, which has been proved by P.W.-7, Shiv Harsh Tiwari, Investigating Officer.
8. The accused/appellants were charged under Sections 302/34, 377/34, and 403 I.P.C., who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. In order to bring home guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined Afsar Ali as P.W.-1, Hari Narayan as PW-2, Jurakhan as P.W.-3, Jugnu as P.W.-4, Balram as P.W.-5, Dr. P.N. Verma as P.W.-6, Investigating Officer, Shiv Harsh Tiwari as P.W.-7 and Sri Krishna Shukla as P.W.-8.
10. The accused/appellants, in their statements, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., have stated the prosecution story to be false. They also stated to have been falsely implicated in this case and claimed to be innocent.
11. No evidence in defence was adduced by the accused/appellant before the learned trial Court.
12. The postmortem on the cadaver has been conducted by Dr. P.N. Verma, P.W.-6, which has been proved by him as Ext. Ka-5. As per postmortem report of the deceased, following ante-mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased :
2. Abraison 14 cm x 11 cm on lower part of chest and upper part of abdoment (epigastrium) in the middle.
3. Abrasion 6 cm x 3 cm on back of Lt. elbow.
4. Abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm on back of Lt. hand in middle.
5. Abrasion 4 cm x 4 cm on back of right elbow.
6. Abrasion 6 cm x 4 cm on back of right forearm in middle.
7. Superficial b
The judgment underscores the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain that excludes all reasonable hypotheses of innocence for a conviction.
It is a settled legal proposition that conviction of a person accused of committing an offence, is generally based solely on evidence that is either oral or documentary, but in exceptional circumstan....
(1) Section 34 IPC and 115 IPC would not go hand in hand.(2) Evidence is raw material which Judge or Adjudicator uses to reach a finding of fact – Courts can record order of conviction even in a case....
In murder cases based on circumstantial evidence, each link must be established beyond reasonable doubt, with all evidence consistently pointing to the guilt of the accused.
The court upheld the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the last seen theory and the accused's failure to explain the circumstances of the death.
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and mere circumstantial evidence or suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all links in the evidence chain must be established beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
